Monday, 3 February 2020

The Top Twenty Films of the 2010s

(Photo credit: Toru Yamanaka)

For lack of a better image and not being too good on the graphic design front, I've decided to use a photograph of Hayao Miyazaki smiling as the cover for this article, because I like Hayao Miyazaki, Hayao Miyazaki makes me happy, and Hayao Miyazaki smiling makes me smile, so all round, shiny happy people, right? Brilliant! Let's go!

At the end of one decade, so begins another (frig sake, I sound like Boris Johnson yapping on about Brexit!). We're in the midst of Oscar season, and all this talk about the best films of 2019 got me thinking, "What are the best films of the 2010s?" 

This was a significant decade for me, as it was my first full decade as an adult, and for much of that period I dedicated myself to reviewing as many movies as I could. I don't know the exact number, but it would be well into the hundreds. So, I would like to think there was some vested interest on my part and that I'd be able to comment with a semblance of legitimacy. 

Before I get underway, a few things should be stated:

1. When I say in the title "Top Twenty" know there has been a little bit of flexibility applied when ti comes to this. There are twenty entries, but in all twenty-three films are appraised, as I feel they are most representative of both my opines and where they stand in the wider scheme of things. One of these entries includes three films, so as to accommodate a whole trilogy, and another features two similarly-themed pictures, addressing related topics and issues. Also, hey, it's my list!

2. My opinions as and when a number of these films came out can be found in the back catalogue/archive of my blog. However, I am taking retrospective opinion into account, and what I mean by that is that the movies making the grade here are the ones which have stayed with me. So, I may have liked a particular work over that of another upon initial release, but in hindsight my opinion might have changed. That plays a key part in my overall judgment.

3. This list is composed of not only films I reviewed or discussed upon initial release, but films I have also seen in the years since. The proportion is 18:5, so most of these works I have discussed in depth, but there were others that haven't which I viewed more casually, but felt could not be ignored.

4. As I am 'semi-retired' as far as film criticism (after having the best intentions to balance my own artistic endeavours with film criticism, I chose to sacrifice the latter to pursue the former), it must be said that from 2017-2019 I do not possess so much as full a perspective as the years previous. Put simply, the volume of movies I watched saw a massive diminution, being stuck in the thick of writing my debut novel, Cat's Miaow (which is finished now. Like, legitimately this time.). That said, I did see a number of films which really moved me and are represented on this list.

5. It is presented in ascending order (#20-#1) for these purposes, so least first, most last, etc.

And so, with all that in mind, let us commence battle. Round One! Fight!


#20 - Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (Nuri Bilge Ceylan, 2011)

I watched this film a few years ago, and although I liked Nuri Bilge Ceylan's Uzak, I was not expecting this whatsoever. It really snuck up and took me by surprise. On paper the plot, a police investigation of the search for a corpse led by a suspect who was drunk at the time of the body's burial, and thus has a hazy memory as to it's location, is rather simple, but it's about so much more. As the group work through the night, this philosophical and blackly humorous film is as much about the musings and observations, the lives of the individuals involved. With it's languorous and meditative pacing, beautifully shot in rural small towns, villages and the hillside of the Anatolian steppe, it's a unique and fascinating picture that is hard to forget once seen.


#19 - Manchester by the Sea (Kenneth Lonergan, 2016)

Despite the praise being lavished on the picture, I didn't see Manchester By The Sea until after the Oscar fanfare had calmed. I saw it one night with my cousins while visiting family over in England, and was immediately struck by it's power. I've seen at least one or two times since and am convinced of it's brilliance. The performances are uniformly superb (especially Casey Affleck) and the screenplay is terrific, but what separates this film is that the sincerity rings true. You get this sense of the people and their shared history together, the weight of all the years, the familial connections, the tensions that exist between them. Also, as a study of grief and depression, it is largely unmatched. Kenneth Lonergan's work as writer-director here is that of someone in touch with the inherently dramatic possibilities of a human story.


(Picture credit: TeePublic.com)
#18 - The Planet of the Apes reboot trilogy (Rupert Wyatt/Matt Reeves, 2011/2014/2017)

This is my first cheat, but with good reason! You see, for all I rant on and give off about franchises, I am not opposed to them when done well. Although being a fan of the original series, I was against a reboot (especially with mo-cap replacing the classic makeup), Rise of the Planet of the Apes won me over, especially with the performance of Andy Serkis. From there, we went onto Dawn, which is the most accessible of the trilogy, ticking all the boxes, and it made a forkload of cash. The series reached it's climax with War, and I have to say, I can't recall seeing a summer blockbuster as dark and with such wanton chaos and destruction. Literally, there were children in tears a few rows in front of me. As a whole though, this trilogy, the story of Caesar, is for me the standard bearer of how you do a contemporary franchise: it has the popcorn entertainment, the technology is ground-breaking and artistic, it hits all the right emotional beats, and furthermore, it actually has to something to say about society and the world we're living in. Now that Disney has the rights due to the acquisition of 21st Century Fox in April 2019, it's doubtful we'll get anything more of this standard, but we still have this trio of wonders for which we should be very grateful. I know I am!


#17 - Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky, 2010)

Compiling this list and putting it together was a lot harder than I expected. That being said, I'm usually fairly decisive as regards to opinions and aesthetics. However, when I went to take my dog a walk around the block, out of the longlist of fifty-one, there was one movie I came back to: Black Swan. I'd been mulling it over and couldn't get the damn thing out of my head. As I do my best thinking while exercising, walking or in some form of motion, I decided to reappraise and watch the film for the first time in many years, and my word, it is still potent. Natalie Portman's performance as Nina is astonishing, and Darren Aronofsky's audio-visual aesthetic, from the DV cinematography by Matthew Libatique, Matthew Weisblum's editing and the combination of Clint Mansell's score, original work by The Chemical Brothers and Tchaikovsky's own Swan Lake, make Black Swan a ride like no other. It is relentless and really gets under your skin (the stuff about physical decay and doubles was freaking me out!) in a subtly suggestive fashion. Although I think I saw it originally as a thriller, I can't help but see this psychological unravelling of a ballet dancer striving towards perfection as anything but a horror. Stands up strong.


#16 - I, Daniel Blake (Ken Loach, 2016)

A film which sparked fierce debate within the United Kingdom, the negative criticism levelled towards I, Daniel Blake is that it presented an unrealistic portrayal of the benefits system in Britain. Regardless of what one thinks about the film's politics (it should be said for brevity's sake that I largely agree), what stood out for me first and foremost was it's depiction of people and the concerns of their everyday lives. The titular Daniel Blake, played by Dave Johns, forms a bond with young mother Katie Morgan, played by Hayley Squires, and it's hard not to sympathise with these people banding together as they struggle to get by. Although it is an allegorical work with a deeply entrenched socio-political message, the simplicity of director Ken Loach and screenwriter Paul Laverty's approach, focusing on the little things to tell a big story, is quietly and profoundly moving.


#15 - Nightcrawler (Dan Gilroy, 2014)

There have been many works that have been described 'the film of our time' in other lists summing up the 2010s. However, for me, Nightcrawler is the one I feel fits the bill. Protagonist Lou Bloom, sensationally played by Jake Gyllenhaal in his best performance to date (and disgustingly overlooked at that year's Academy Awards), in another time would be a down-and-outer with no prospects, but despite his obvious derangements and being a selfish, amoral sociopath, in this day and age he's provided the ways and means to flourish. Writer-director Dan Gilroy shows us that in this world obsessed by the media, pop culture and consumerism, these people have the opportunity to succeed. It's razor-sharp satire and black comedy masquerading as prototypical genre thriller, albeit an at times nerve-wracking and very frightening one. Since it has come out, I have seen it at on at least three or four more occasions, and I see something new every time. Not only is it a real treat, but it has something to say. 


#14 - The Irishman (Martin Scorsese, 2019)

I covered Martin Scorsese's The Irishman at length in my last blog post, and putting it up against the rest of the best of the 2010s it stands head-and-shoulders among that class. An epic that likes of which only a great master such as Scorsese could pull, the ensemble cast, especially Pesci, are on point, the script by Steve Zaillian is a masterclass in world-building, and Thelma Schoonmaker's editing keeps the piece watertight. Furthermore, it touches upon a meditative and melancholic note. Scorsese and company contemplating the meaning of what all these people's lives amount to when all's said and done. For all the robust running time it flies in, and the note it ends upon lingers long after the credits roll. A sensational late-game work, and I feel certainly among the director's finest.



#13 - Blue is the Warmest Colour and Moonlight (Abdellatif Kechiche/Barry Jenkins, 2013/2016)

And here is my second cheat. I've decided to group these two together as, although reluctant to label movies as 'gay cinema,' to me the 2010s marked a significant changing of the guard as far as opening up LGBT culture to a populist audience.

I saw Abdellatif Kechiche's Blue is the Warmest Colour about the same time it was released. Despite having won the Palme d'Or, controversy followed it everywhere over what was considered to be graphic content and onset conflicts. Regardless, bolstered up by the two stunning performances from Adéle Exarchopoulos and Léa Seydoux, Blue is the Warmest Colour is one of the most raw and passionate pieces of cinema you're likely to encounter. It is a beautifully told coming-of-age story about self-discovery, happiness, lust, sadness and all of the other things that come with the emotional rollercoaster that is love. It's a long film, and I've only seen it the once, but it is firmly seared into my memory.

When Moonlight came out, I thought very highly of it, but I placed other films higher when it came to my best and worst of the year. However, in the years since, I've seen it again, and whenever I think about it the film has risen in my estimation. Presenting the character of Chiron at three different (and significant) stages in his life, it's a film exploring the issues he faces with his identity, race, class, masculinity and sexuality. In many ways Chiron is the cipher, the prism through which the young black male, or the audience as a whole, views and observes, sees things from a perspective that is new, fresh and interesting. With a wonderful screenplay and performances, Moonlight stands out as a brisk and exemplar film.


#12 - Inside Out (Pete Docter, 2015)

I loved Inside Out when it was first released and have seen it several times since. It was well into consideration for this list, and I was reminded of being away on holiday with my family over this past Christmas. I think we were all sitting in the same room, my mother flicking through the channels with the remote, and Inside Out came on. It was only the last ten or fifteen minutes, but I realised I could literally sit and watch this film at any time on any day of the week at any point right through to the end. From a conceptual standpoint it is very intelligent, but it's execution is so sweet, funny, charming and endearing, that it's hard not to fall in love with it. Notwithstanding the fact that it is a gorgeous film which treats your senses and make you feel all warm and fuzzy, it's a moving story about growing up and how we emotionally react in addressing troublesome situations in our life. I absolutely adore it!


#11 - Mad Max: Fury Road (George Miller, 2015)

Earlier on, I said that the Apes films are the standard bearer for franchises. Well, blockbusters will never be the same after Mad Max: Fury Road. Stripping down the narrative to the barest essentials, it does that most rare thing in cinema successfully, which is to tell the whole story on the move, or in this case, on the road. Most action movies have these big sequences, and then they'll stop and go, "uh, we need a bit of plot here." Fury Road does not do that, and it refuses to let go from start to finish. The choreography and stunt work is among some of the best ever seen. It is a work of technical wizardry, and manages in the midst of all this pandemonium to tell an effective story of survival and the hero's journey (both Tom Hardy's Max and Charlize Theron's Furiosa go on their own voyages of discovery) with an ecological and feministic slant. George Miller is an incredible taskmaster, and that he manages to control all the separate strands and strings, pull them off successfully and simultaneously is nothing short of remarkable. It is the great action movie of our times.


#10 - Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

To say I had low expectations for Blade Runner 2049 would be an understatement. Despite the principals involved, I revere the original Blade Runner, and felt that any sequel to Ridley Scott's classic, thirty-five years after the fact, would be needless and perfunctory. But, as with the recent Apes trilogy, I was glad to be proven wrong. The ensemble cast are uniformly strong, and from the standpoint of pure production it is a wonder. The production design, visual effects and cinematography are of a level beyond virtually every other live-action film in recent memory, and the score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch gives it a stirring aural identity distinctive from that of Vangelis whilst still being respectful of the past. That statement there more or less sums up much of how Blade Runner 2049 succeeds: it's a movie that knows it's history, and yet does not bog itself too deep in it. Along with screenwriters Michael Green and the returning Hampton Fancher, Denis Villeneuve (one of the great directorial visionaries of his time) moulds a story that simply begs to be seen. "You newer models are happy scraping the shit... because you've never seen a miracle." Blade Runner 2049 is just that.


#9 - Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)

Director Alfonso Cuaron has only made three films over the past fifteen years, but as I'm concerned he can take as long as he damn well pleases! He is an artist of true authorial intent, and every time he crops up he gives us something interesting. Gravity is a cinematic experience like no other. In similar fashion to Mad Max: Fury Road, it is a simple story, raw and stripped-down, of Sandra Bullock's Dr. Ryan Stone battling against adversity in space after debris destroys her and her crew's shuttle mid-mission. While we are taken on this nerve-wracking, white-knuckle adrenaline ride just over ninety minutes long, we gather all of this information surrounding her and her backstory. Gravity is a paradox, in that it is an exemplar piece of compressed filmmaking but also a big, big technical marvel. The great DP Emmanuel Lubezki, who won three Academy Award in the 2010s (including for this picture) and, for me, is the best cinematographer of this generation, combines his keen eye with the extraordinary CGI, delivering a visual splendour like no other, and the same can be said for the sound design and original score by Steven Price. Every time I see it I am taken in by it's sheer intensity, and uplifted by the message of hope it gives for humanity.

#8 - Joker (Todd Phillips, 2019)

When I wrote an article upon Joker's release, I described as a dangerous and subversive film. I still stand by that statement. While obviously I am aware of the connotations behind that kind of rhetoric, I chose to use words like this to emphasise that this is the kind of game changer that, through the challenging perspective presented, opens up the playing field and starts a new conversation about how we address mental health issues, societal problems and political discontent. Filtered through the character of Arthur Fleck, in a transcendent performance by Joaquin Phoenix, who I think will and should win the Academy Award for Best Actor, everything about the production (the evocative orchestral strings, for instance, of Hildur Guðnadóttir) is channelled towards this end which, though provocative in approach and aesthetic, is compassionate. Controversial it may be, but Todd Phillips' picture is a self-assured depthcharge of filmmaking with clear intent, which penetrates through to the core. I was really bowled over by it, and I feel it will last the test of time.


#7 - The Turin Horse (Béla Tarr/Ágnes Hranitsky, 2011)

I would not hesitate in making the claim that The Turin Horse is probably the most divisive film on this list. I went to see it upon initial release with a friend, and while I sat enraptured for the two-and-a-half hour running time, he absolutely hated it, and I can totally understand why. It is a dreary, ponderous work of desolation and despair on, in director Béla Tarr's words, "the heaviness of human existence," consisting largely of long takes in wordless silence, only interrupted by the music of Mihály Vig, consisting of one piece that I can only be describe as a depressed carousel on a loop. While that may not sell you on the film, despite all these arguments to the contrary it is a strange and fascinating piece, unique, entrancing, hypnotic and enigmatic. Fred Keleman's beautiful black-and-white photography, with it's immaculate framing, is like portraiture in motion, as we follow these characters through the tedium and repetitive monotony of their day-to-day lives. It reminds me of something Tarkovsky said about the long take ("If the regular length of a shot becomes increased, one becomes bored, but if you keep making it longer, it piques your interest, and if you make it even longer, a new quality emerges, a special intensity of attention."). The now-retired Béla Tarr was a filmmaker like no other, and this is one of his very best.


#6 - The Tale of the Princess Kaguya (Isao Takahata, 2013)

It must be said right off the bat that I am a fan of Studio Ghibli. While by no means a completist, their films have given me some of the greatest joys I have been privileged to experience as someone who loves this medium. The Tale of the Princess Kaguya, the final film by the late Isao Takahata, is no exception. Based on the 10th-century monogatari (literary form of traditional Japanese literature) The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter, a bamboo cutter discovers within a shoot a little girl who he and his wife raise as their own, nicknaming her Takenoko (Little Bamboo) on account of her diminutive size and rapid growth. Steeped in folklore, myth and legend, the film is a delight, with it's distinctive watercolour-based visual style and Joe Hisaishi's soaring delight of a score. Also, although it is a fantasy, ultimately it is the humanity Takahata and all involved inject it with which elevates it to that higher level. I can remember watching it for the first time and for much of the last section of the film (especially the ending) being in a continuous flood of tears. It's such a sweet film and really endearing, a beautiful work of art, and a testament to the legacy of Takahata. Thank you, Paku-san!


#5 - Drive (Nicolas Winding Refn, 2011)

When I first saw Drive, I was very impressed by it, but felt there were a number of films I reviewed that year which were better all round. Well, put it this way, fast forward a few years and none of the three which I rated higher feature in this particular article. That's not to discredit them, it's just the way things go. Drive is a film which has risen exponentially in my estimation. Ryan Gosling's Driver is a subtly brilliant spin on the heroic knight in shining armour archetype, and the way the whole thing unfolds feels like a dark fairy tale unfolding under neon lights, "shimmering neon lights, and at the fall of night, this city's made of lights." The soundtrack, both original and orchestral, gives it a unique vibe both retro and futuristic, and the visual presentation, especially in relation to the juxtaposition of serene beauty and extreme violence, is simply stunning. Although I tend to view Nic Winding Refn's recent work in a more positive light than others, he has still failed to top this. It ticks all the boxes as far as being a poppy, pulp genre thriller, and yet manages to transcend surface-level genre trappings. It is a romance and journey of self-discovery. I think it is the most influential film of the decade, as it's aesthetic(s) seemed to define the 2010s across all art forms. We saw this more and more of this penetration into the consciousness of pop culture as time went on. This cannot be denied, and I don't think I can give it a bigger ringing endorsement than that.


#4 - Victoria (Sebastian Schipper, 2015)

I think with all the talk made in the past number of years (and recently) about other similar one-shot movies, or those designed as such, it is somewhat apropos that I cast my mind back to Victoria. It was one of those films I heard murmurings about from various people, almost spoken in whispers, shrouded in secrecy and mystery. This is the real deal, and it has to be seen to be believed. Following the titular Victoria, a sympathetic protagonist played magnificent by Laia Costa, we follow her and a group of individuals over the course of one night in Berlin in real-time, and the simple execution of the thing, from the staging to the cinematography, is astonishing. Regardless of the feat in and of itself (not to disregard the accomplishment), what strikes most about Victoria is you completely lose yourself in the story and care about what these characters are going through. This is helped no end by Nils Frahm's score, which immerses you further into the atmosphere and mood conjured. It is of a reactive nature, almost improvisatory, that is reflective of the film itself, in that, although tightly constructed, it has this aspect of spontaneity, a feeling of realism often lacking in other pictures. During the course of research for this article, I found the full movie online to stream, and I kind of dottered about and watched the opening 'scene' in the nightclub, realising I could quite easily sit and watch the full thing. What Sebastian Schipper creates sucks you in, and it is thoroughly engaging and moving.  


#3 - Boyhood (Richard Linklater, 2014)

I have long been a fan of Richard Linklater, a director who I feel not only has several masterpieces to his name, but is also always willing to try something different. In that respect, with Boyhood he went over and above. Filmed over a period of twelve years between 2001 and 2013, it follows the lives of young Mason, his sister Samantha, and their divorced parents Olivia and Mason Sr. as time passes by. The film reflects the often-improvisatory nature of Linklater's approach, in that the script was malleable and fluid, incorporating the real-life experiences of the actors and changing as filming went on. This filters across into the actual picture itself, and what we get is this impression not of an epic coming-of-age story (which it most definitely is!), but that of being a fly on the wall, observing life as it unfolds in the most natural way. While lacking some of the panache, razz-dazz and flash of other films out there and, indeed, some of the films on this list, the understated richness of it's texture cannot be overlooked. The performances by the four principals (Ellar Coltrane, Lorelei Linklater, Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke) are sincere, it's a wonderfully put together work editorially through Sandra Adair's subtle cutting, and with Richard Linklater at the helm we are in safe hands. There are moments in this film which are universal, ringing true in their familiarity, which get me every time. 


#2 - The Act of Killing (Joshua Oppenheimer, 2012)

As you can perhaps tell by the last few entries on this list (and several others), I'm a sucker for high-concept art and big ideas, those works that are bold and audacious from the very foundation. No film released in the 2010s pushed the boundaries, the envelope, set the bar higher, than Joshua Oppenheimer's documentary film The Act of Killing. In Indonesian, the film's title, Jagal, means 'Butcher,' keying into the filmmaker's subject, that of the Indonesian Genocide in the mid-1960s. What is most frightening, though, is that in documenting the individuals involved in perpetrating these state-sanctioned murders, Oppenheimer encourages them to create re-enactments of their own killings. In another filmmaker's hands, it would be an outrageous piece of exploitation, but Oppenheimer drills through, boring a hole into the core of what he is driving at, in that, in a somewhat bizarre, absurd, surreal, skewed and at times even funny way, he encourages these people to confront their actions and their feelings in a more honest fashion than would otherwise be possible. I first saw it in the Queen's Film Theatre and walked out of the cinema completely shell-shocked. So passionate I felt about this film and how it shone a light on one of the unfortunate blights and overlooked moments in history that I contacted the film's UK distributor Dogwoof, established an online connection with Oppenheimer (who was lovely and provided a number of helpful items, clearly passionate about getting the word out there about these injustices), and presented my own screening of the film at the former Warzone Centre in Bruce Street, Belfast. I believe the screener I received was the first time I saw the full Director's Cut, and it further cemented my love for the film. I've seen it several times since, and, along with it's companion piece The Look of Silence, it's a devastating, powerful and important piece of cinema that is not to be missed. 


#1 - Toy Story 3 (Lee Unkrich, 2010)

And here we have it! My number one film of the 2010s is none other than Toy Story 3. From all the way back in 2010 at the start of the decade, this film has stayed with me as the high standard by which all other contemporary works are to be judged. Anyone who knows me knows my love for this film knows no boundaries and I will gush at length about it's brilliance. I went to see this at my favourite cinema, the former Strand Cinema, now the Strand Arts Centre, with my friend Daniel Kelly, and it was a wonderful experience. Talking about it after, I forget who fessed up in what order, but it ended up coming out that as I was facing away to one side crying, he was doing the exact same thing on the opposite side. That's not to say that you spend the whole thing like a weeping wreck (although I do do a fair amount of that). Toy Story 3 is also one of the funniest films you're ever likely to come across. Michael Arndt collaborates with returning Pixar personnel to incorporate some of his approach to this film, bringing to the table his fine balance of comedy and drama while keeping in with the spirt of the previous two Toy Story films. It's intelligent comedy with sharp, smart dialogue, and there are things in it that are so outrageously and gut-bustingly funny that I end up in stitches, like legitimate pain. The voice cast are a credit too to that all round. It's all well and good having these words on a written page, but without the work of these actors giving their gusto and putting their heart and soul into it, you simply wouldn't be able to buy it. That's one of the thing that sets Pixar at their best apart: passion. These people believe in what they are doing, the animators and everyone involved working hand over foot to give the audiences something wonderful, joyous and spellbinding. In ten years of reviewing films from 2007-2016 it was the only film I ever gave a 'Perfect 10.' This story about growing up, moving on, friendship and so much more, which I saw at the age of eighteen, still touches my heart a decade on in a way that no other film could manage. Everything from the ground up (shout-out to Randy Newman for his cracking score, and the recently-retired Lee Unkrich as directorial anchor. I hope you're having a wonderful time with your family, Mr. Unkrich. You deserve it.) just works. It is for me not only the greatest film of the 2010s, but also the greatest film of the 21st century thus far, and certainly among the greatest films of all time. I put it right in there alongside the very rare pictures on a high pedestal at the cream of the crop. I love it, I love it, I love it. What Pixar has done for the industry and cinema as an art form cannot be overstated, and this is their magnum opus. I shout it from the rooftops, "A thousand thanks, my friends!"

And there ye go! That was my top twenty films of the 2010s. As I have said on numerous occasions, although I have some issues with contemporary cinema, I re-iterate once again that, as evidenced by the films here, that cinema, far from being on a downward spiral, is alive and kicking. It'll be interesting to see where things go moving forward into the 2020s and the lay of the land in ten years time. As it stands, for all the changes going on and how I feel cinema to be in a period of real transition, I think it'll be in a positive place. In that, I have faith.

Monday, 27 January 2020

Martin Scorsese: The Irishman, America's Greatest Filmmaker, and Contemporary Hollywood



On the 27th of September 2019, Martin Scorsese's highly-anticipated film The Irishman had its world premiere at the New York Film Festival, going onto limited theatrical release on November 1st, before eventual digital streaming from November 27th on the platform of the film's distributor, Netflix. A cinematic event met with widespread acclaim, it was a regular topic of conversation, particularly in relation to it's runtime, in the immediate aftermath of it's release. Further solidifying Scorsese's reputation as one of the all-time greats and, in my opinion, America's greatest filmmaker, at the same time a whole furore was caused when Scorsese made a number of comments regarding the Marvel movie franchise. As such, I got to thinking about the place of an artist such as Scorsese in contemporary Hollywood, and where their work fits into the grand scheme of things.

I had the pleasure of watching The Irishman at the Strand Arts Centre with my mother, formerly The Strand, my favourite cinema, where they had fitted out a new projector.  The presentation was immaculate. While obviously designed and marketed around the Netflix digital streaming platform, nothing can beat going to see a great film on the big screen. For all that's been made about the running time which, at two-hundred and nine minutes, is longer than most contemporary theatrical releases, I was enraptured throughout. Though I often give off about movies being too long, never once was I bored. The ensemble cast, among the best ever gathered for a picture, were uniformly solid, but I would like to highlight the work of Bob De Niro, Al Pacino, Stephen Graham, and most especially Joe Pesci. Often associated with fast-talking, volatile and temperamental characters, Pesci gets to display another side to his acting chops as the soft-spoken voice of reason in Russell Bufalino, who often serves as mediator, the go-between for some of the more bombastic individuals in the story. The script by Steven Zaillian is a mighty piece of work. We are thrust, in a great exercise of world-building, into this landscape where the veneer of respectability and the criminal underworld are often intertwined, one and the same, and it doesn't feel anything less than believable. Also, despite the many characters and it being a dialogue-heavy piece, we never once lose our sense of place. A sprawling, authoritative epic which made me think of Herbert Asbury's The Gangs Of New York (the Scorsese adaptation of which Zaillian was one of the principal writers), it feels remarkably balanced, changing and adjusting tones, dialling it up and down if and when necessary. In that vein, Scorsese's longtime editor Thelma Schoonmaker deserves praise. Often in conjunction with the script, she ensures the film, though robust, remains razor-sharp and watertight. It carries none of the excess flab that a lot of pictures of this length do, justifying the weight of it's runtime. We are not really given much in the way of space for our mind to wander or be led astray, so even though it has been described as 'slow' by Scorsese standards, we are consistently challenged and engaged on an emotional and intellectual level. A large part of that is due to the fact that Schoonmaker just gets it, understands the stimulus necessary to make a brain tick, do the work and put the pieces together. Finally, a word or few must be said about Scorsese. Although being marketed as a return to the mob film, a genre more than familiar to the director, I feel The Irishman is a venture into uncharted waters. I remember discussing The Irishman in relation to Goodfellas, the latter being a film I feel to be among the most immaculately paced in film history, but put the two side by side and tonally they are night and day, requiring two different kinds of aesthetic approach. I often describe Scorsese as "a rock and roll filmmaker." This is perhaps most obvious in the case of his documentaries, and fictional features like Mean Streets, Goodfellas, Casino and The Departed. Scorsese loves great music, and designs his films to hit the same kind of beats a great song does. But where Goodfellas is The Rolling Stones, The Irishman is more of a jazz or blues piece. It's moody and contemplative, deconstructing the narrative built up around itself, asking us to question our own existence and mortality in the long run. To see an artist confront himself and ask these universal questions which touch us all is thoroughly refreshing.

This brings me to my next point. When Scorsese made the comments in Empire magazine, suggesting, as regards Marvel, that "that's not cinema," making a comparison between them and "theme parks," there was an uproar from fans and industry figures alike, challenging the great director on his comments. But, as he elaborated in his op-ed post for the New York Times on the 4th of November, it was not so much the films themselves he was railing against but what it has done to the industry as a whole. Sure, one's definition of what is or isn't cinema, art, is an entirely subjective matter. If you're asking whether I agree or disagree with Scorsese, I'd say both; I agree because, one, I sway towards Scorsese's aesthetic, and two, he's allowed to have that opinion if he so pleases; and I disagree, because to generalise and lump everything together is take away a work's merit as it stands on it's own two feet. I, like Scorsese, have seen a number of Marvel movies, some of which I really like, others not so much. I don't object to them with any real fervour, but they're not exactly my cup of tea and I don't go out of my way to make time to watch them all. What I don't like, and in this sense I understand where Scorsese is coming from, is that Marvel, somewhat unfortunately, is representative, indicative of the American film industry, and by proxy the film industry as a whole, moving in a direction where the only films you can see on the big screen are these loud and bombastic pictures that spend the whole time bashing you over the head with a mallet, or in this case, Mjölnir. Franchises, more often than not based upon existing properties, are the done thing, and unfortunately for those of us who favour a different aesthetic, there isn't much choice when out of x-number of screens, the majority are occupied by Marvel, Star Wars et al. Variety is the spice of life, as they say, and although each of these individual franchises have their own stories, their approach is usually the same, and rarely do they deviate from the format. Even if you do get the odd opportunity to see something different in a multiplex or independent cinema, chances are you'll hear explosions emerging from the sound system of one of the adjoining auditoriums. I too like a spectacle (the recent trio of Planet Of The Apes films spring to mind), but it becomes part of the law of diminishing returns if you see slight variations of the same thing over and over again: eventually, they lose impact, and you find yourself bored to tears, despite the fact that you know about half a billion dollars that could have went towards helping an impoverished country has been thrown up on the screen. Which leaves me with the question,

where do the artists go?

The answer, these days, seems to be into different formats. Netflix and streaming platforms have been changing the nature of cinema. Akin to the television experience, they have taken viewers from the collective viewing experience into that of the individual, and that is somewhat understandable given some of the foolish, raucous behaviour of patrons in cinemas. I recently went to see Little Women and had a middle-aged woman spend most of the film hitting her knees off the back of my seat, and who wants that?. Also, as many of the great artists have been chased out of the theatres in the 21st century, they have begun to ply their crafts in different mediums. In a May 2016 interview at the Cannes Film Festival, Viggo Mortensen revealed that David Cronenberg, whose last picture was 2014's Map To The Stars, was considering retiring from filmmaking because of the difficulties in attaining funding for his film projects, and also that he was deriving a lot of joy in writing books. I've often said that television is where the really bold and daring projects go these days. We've seen the rise of shows like The Sopranos, The Shield, Breaking Bad, Hannibal and more make way for the likes of David Lynch, unable to obtain support for feature-length film projects, who went to the Showtime network to produce Twin Peaks: The Return, a work that, in this landscape, could not have been done elsewhere. Also, although cinema purists rail against the proliferation of Netflix originals (in 2018 at the Cannes Film Festival, the ban on Netflix films from competition led to the streaming giant pulling all of their films from that year's festival, including Alfonso Cuarón's Academy Award-winning Roma), a lot of these streaming platforms, with their rise in success, are leading to projects being greenlit that otherwise would have been left in the dark. It took the clout of the now-deposed industry mogul Harvey Weinstein and his Miramax to give Scorsese's Gangs Of New York the GO, but that was twenty years ago and the industry is very different now. Although trying to pursue it for years, The Irishman lingered in development hell before financing came from Mexican production company Fábrica de Cine in May 2016. When they dropped out of the project in February 2017, so too did distributor Paramount. At this point, Netflix stepped in to buy the rights for a reported $105 million, and to finance entirely the escalating budget, then set at $125 million. They picked up the ball where others had left off, and the rest, as they say, is history. For all that the industry rails against some of these changes, and to an extent, so do I, these streaming platforms and television networks are doing breathtaking, groundbreaking things often far ahead of their cinematic counterparts. It is up to the film industry to catch up, because it is clear to me that the artists such as Scorsese, even if begrudgingly so, are copping on.

I make no secret of my love for the work of Martin Scorsese. Gearing up for his latest film, Killers Of The Flower Moon, starring regulars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro, the maestro heads into his seventh decade as a feature filmmaker, having made over forty fictional and documentary feature films since 1967's Boxcar Bertha. Already I've mentioned Goodfellas and others, but Scorsese has a score of great films to his name, such as The King Of Comedy, Shutter Island (a highly underrated work), Hugo and The Wolf Of Wall Street. However, two films stand out to me in Scorsese's oeuvre as being important. When I was a teenager, I saw Taxi Driver and was flabbergasted. Stylistically, it's a hybrid between the genre-film sensibilities of a Hitchcockian thriller, and the moody contemplation of European art-house cinema. The drive of De Niro's performance as ticking timebomb Travis Bickle, the brooding duality of Bernard Hermann's score, the note-perfect script by Paul Schrader (one of my all-time favourite screenplays), aurally, visually, texturally, every part of that film just tickled my fancy. Taxi Driver always was the one I would say was my favourite, but as I got older and grew into young adulthood, my sensibilities starting leaning another way. It must have been around 2012, 2013, but I was attending a counselling session, and was posed what, on the surface, seems a fairly basic question: "What movie do you think best represents you?" I was stumped, and couldn't answer. Around the same time, I re-watched Raging Bull for the first time in quite a while. I saw it originally when I was about eleven or twelve, and if I'm honest I didn't really get it. It's one of the few times I'll definitely attribute it to being too young to enjoy or appreciate a given film. However, as I saw Raging Bull again, the proverbial lightbulb went off and I said "that's it." Notwithstanding my admiration for how beautifully put together it is, the expertise of the craftsmanship, the art of filmmaking, I empathised a lot with the character of Jake La Motta as portrayed by De Niro: the pent-up anger, the pride, the social awkwardness, the masochistic attitude towards pain, both physical and mental, sexual repression, the antagonistic streak, the self-destructiveness, the obsession, emotional frustrations and pure animalism of his nature. De Niro's Jake is not necessarily a sympathetic character: indeed, he's a churl and a brute, putting it lightly, but I most definitely identify with the character. The flawed aspects in his person make him relatable and, ultimately, human. While I can judge the piece on it's own merit, the picture also means a lot to me in terms of my own residual feelings on a personal level, so, in that sense Raging Bull emerges as the cream of the crop. The greatest pieces of art have to touch and engage us in some way on that personal level in order to elevate themselves from the status of mere entertainment, however admirable and pleasing that may be. Raging Bull is one such piece.

Having entered that rare echelon of filmmakers with over half a century in the business, the only others in the United States I can think of still kicking with that kind of longevity are regular activity are David Lynch and Clint Eastwood. Otherwise, you'd have to go abroad and find the likes of Alejandro Jodorowsky or Jean-Luc Godard, and in the UK Ken Loach and Mike Leigh. While I'm name-dropping here there is something I should mention. My good friend and comrade-at-arms Daniel Kelly always brings up a great point in our discussions on the movie business, in that there are probably only about four or five filmmakers in Hollywood who have the clout to get an original project off the ground. Scorsese, along with Christopher Nolan and Steven Spielberg, is usually among the names we mention. Interestingly, in the course of my research, neither of the former two feature in The Hollywood Reporter's annual Most Powerful People in Entertainment list, so maybe I'm wrong. You could take your pick of any number of others to fill the other spots, but I'd probably hazard a guess to say that James Cameron and Quentin Tarantino would be comfortable picks as to those with relative artistic autonomy in Hollywood. 

That being said, from what I have emphasised earlier, the key word to take away from that previous sentence is relative. However grand, incredible, or ground-breaking each of these artists' visions may be, no matter the audience numbers, how much they move, enlighten and entertain us, it still remains that they, to quote the Godfather of Soul James Brown, "paid the cost to be the boss." Without the lucrative monetary backing of financiers, the sad fact is that many of the greatest pictures ever made would have been left unrealised. From D.W. Griffith and Cecil B. DeMille onwards, it has always been this way in Hollywood. It is only over time that the stakes have changed. Up until the 1970s, the primary big-budget movies were the prestige picture, which largely consisted of costume epics and period dramas. Perhaps the greatest example of this in the early days was Gone With The Wind, which had the bulk of executive giant David O. Selznick behind it. In the late 1960s, though, in line with the precedent set by European arthouse cinema, there was a proliferation of more modestly-budgeted American films, some funded independently, of which Martin Scorsese was a key player. It was during this time in the 1970s, for me the peak of American cinema to date, when the template was changed and there was a temporary blending, a melding, a meeting of the minds. Blurring the lines, the sensibilities merged and gelled, giving birth to the likes of The Godfather, The French Connection, The Exorcist, Deliverance, Five Easy Pieces, Nashville, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, the aforementioned Taxi Driver, Rocky, The Deer Hunter, and countless others. However, things began to move in another direction once Steven Spielberg's Jaws came out in 1975. Though Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate is often attributed as the nail in the coffin of this golden age known as New Hollywood, really it was the release of George Lucas' Stars Wars in 1977. Since then, there has been an ideological clash between franchising and original art. It's safe to say that from the money side of things the franchises are winning out. The financiers, for the largest part, are putting their lot in with and cashing their chips on hot properties such as the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The audience demand is there, but equally by throwing it all in with these blockbuster franchises and their merchandising and resplendent frippery they are blocking out and denying artists a voice to tell new stories. But with the arrival of streaming platforms, which first began producing original content in an episodic format akin to television, these new formats have extended their already long reach into the realm of cinema. In one sense it can be seen as negative, and the apocalyptic naysayers will bemoan, as ever, 'the death of cinema,' but with the likes of Netflix now being major players, between these new outlets and the old guard in Hollywood, competition is heating up. As it has fast become more acceptable, pictures like The Irishman make a more than legitimate stake in claiming that although the release pattern and format may break a few rules, the fact is is that, while I am myself somewhat of a traditionalist, it remains art nevertheless. As such, with Hollywood's focus largely on franchising at present, the increase of platforms through which we can experience a given work is to the benefit of artists and audiences alike. 

I don't see much changing in the Hollywood studio system. What they are doing right now, especially as regards Disney, is working well, and this ongoing obsession with franchises, for better or worse, is raking in the cash, bringing audiences to the cinema in record numbers. However, as streaming and alternative platforms to the traditional templates of the vanguards are being challenged by the increasing prestige of pictures that great artists are making for them, it may be that they will, at some stage, have to exhibit some degree of flexibility, deviate from the format. Heading into the third decade of the 21st century, it'll be interesting to see what way this particular awards season plays out. Alongside Scorsese's The Irishman, Noah Baumbach's Marriage Story is another of the nine nominees for Best Picture at the upcoming Academy Awards, and Fernando Meirelles The Two Popes also features heavily. All three films were funded and distributed exclusively by Netflix. Although at this stage I'd say the safe bet is perhaps Sam Mendes' 1917 for the win, the real wild card is Todd Phillips' Joker. On the one hand, it would confirm Hollywood's ongoing investment in comic-book/superhero franchise properties, but on the other, the film is an outre example, and would be akin to acknowledging that they have to go a bit left-of-field in order to attain the kind of recognition they are looking for. 

Although I am occasionally stubborn and grouchy when it comes to contemporary Hollywood, I have been witness to a great many wonders in recent years thanks to these alternative platforms (I'm looking at you, Twin Peaks!). It's amazing, when you think about it, that The Irishman ever got made. Regardless of what you think of the finished film itself, even the idea from a conceptual standpoint is something that sounds like a fantasy that could only exist in a dream world. The combination of all the elements is something that has never been done before, and never will be again. For this alone, I am grateful. Fate and circumstance lay the groundwork, the foundations, for this picture to be made. As long as artists such as Martin Scorsese have a place they can call home, wherever they may decide to ply their craft, then that's okay. 

Sunday, 8 December 2019

The Strange and Flawed Greatness of Betty Blue



About two or three weeks ago, I watched Betty Blue for the first time. I had been wanting to watch the movie for quite a while, and with my folks off to Doha visiting my sister I thought I'd have a Saturday night in with the dog.

Betty Blue, or 37° 2 le matin (37.2°C in the morning), based on the 1985 novel by Philippe Dijan, directed by Jean-Jacques Beineix, starring Jean-Hughes Anglade as Zorg and Béatrice Dalle in the titular role of Betty, was a sensation upon initial release in 1986, both domestically and internationally. In France, it was the eighth highest-grossing film of the year, receiving both BAFTA and Oscar nominations for Best Foreign Language Film. It also entered the-then contemporary eighties zeitgeist. A key part of the Cinéma Du Look film movement, Beineix, who, along with his previous features Diva and Moon In The Gutter, had experience in making advertisements, and went away from some of the realist traditions of La Nouvelle Vague (The New Wave), the film being marketed upon the stylised, picaresque cinematography, particularly in relation to lead actor Béatrice Dalle, who makes her acting debut and came from a modelling background. Also, with a fair amount of onscreen nudity, the film was simultaneously praised and decried for it's depiction of eroticism. Notably in the latter camp, the late Roger Ebert stated in his original review upon theatrical release in the Chicago Sun-Times that, "Love is not the same thing as nudity. This may seem obvious, but I feel it ought to be explained to director Jean-Jacques Beineix," (Roger Ebert, December 25, 1986) going on to write that the film was negative throwback to the days of 'skin flicks' before the advent of pornography.

In 2001, Beineix would re-visit Betty Blue fifteen years after it's initial theatrical release to put together a 'version intégrale' of the film, adding roughly an hour's worth of extra footage cut from the theatrical release. On principle I am generally against there being multiple cuts of the same film. In some cases it has enabled filmmakers to realise their true visions post-hence, but more often than not it is a marketing ploy and is to be taken with a pinch of salt. I am of the Martin Scorsese school of thought in that regard. There has always been a question surrounding the great director and his truncated epic Gangs Of New York, which had the producing weight of then-powerhouse Harvey Weinstein demanding cuts to it's length, and whether or not another version of the film should be released. Rumours abound that a three-hour plus workprint did exist and was circulated among Scorsese's friends, but both regular editor-collaborator Thelma Schoonmaker and Scorsese himself have dismissed any plans of a prospective director's cut, "Marty doesn't believe in that... He believes in showing only the finished film." (Thelma Schoonmaker, from Jeffrey Wells', 'Hollywood Elsewhere: Gangs vs. Gangs', October 26, 2007). Anyway, as the 2013 Second Sight DVD I possess features both the original theatrical release and the version intégrale, I decided if I am going to watch one version I would rather watch the director's preferred cut.

I was very impressed by the picture, and I have not been able to get it out of my head since. As perhaps expected from a key figure of the Cinéma Du Look, often grouped alongside the likes of Luc Besson and Leos Carax, it does, indeed, look the part. Jean-François Robin shot a gorgeous looking film, particularly in the opening segment. The score by Gabriel Yared, which I have listened to compulsively while I'm working at the desk of late, is a collection of highly and sparsely textured pieces, diametrically opposed in many ways, a mixture of electronic synths and guitars, string sections, chorus', saxophone, and a simple piano duet. It's a diverse and layered work from a composer who would later go on to become one of the most celebrated in contemporary cinema. Also, I think there is a bold and challenging authorial intent from writer-director Beineix. While often described as an erotic film, I wouldn't hasten to describe it as such. There are elements of eroticism, but I feel it more resembles naturalism, and in a sense part of what I feel his intent to be is to depict the complexity(s) of romantic relationships. What struck me most though was the strength, courage and conviction of the lead performances. Jean-Hughes Anglade is a sympathetic and humorous protagonist in Zorg, who is an aspiring writer, which is something I can certainly relate to, while Béatrice Dalle creates one of the great onscreen characters in Betty; wild, tempestuous, sensual, inspiring, engaging, and tragic. There's something to be said about how unforced and authentic Betty feels to watch onscreen, flashing a big grin in delight or pouting in displeasure. It's a performance of many little things, and very subtle in terms of the progression she makes over the course of the film. Dalle and Anglade share a palpable onscreen chemistry that is often aimed for but, alas, rarely achieved.

That being said, while I thought it to be a great film, I didn't deem it to be a masterpiece. I was fascinated by the picture, and I knew there was something in there. I just felt that there was something missing, a deep flaw in the overall fabric of the piece, not just something that could be fixed or eradicated with a minor change. For the first time in a while, I was troubled as to what I felt about a given work. Normally I have a fair idea right off the bat what I think, basing intellectual judgement upon initial, purely cerebral reactions, and generally my opinions remain fairly concrete. A notable exception to that rule is Alfonso Cuarón's Children Of Men, but Betty Blue had me in a fix. Then I got to thinking of a film of a similar vein, Fatih Akın's 2004 film Head-On (Gegen die Wand), a personal favourite and another picture I would categorise under the sub-heading of 'Bad Romance' films, depicting impossible relationships (a genre-based theory I've long held and should probably write about some day). Head-On was/is, in my opinion, a lot more focused and channeled a picture, and while I would not make it common practice to always hold one film against another, rather judge them by their own merit, I knew instantly what the problem with Betty Blue was:

it was simply too damn long! While this is clearly part of the authorial intent, I felt that there was a lot of material which was superfluous to the true focus of the story, Betty and Zorg. There were scenes that distracted and took me away from what it was doing right, were tonally too much of an opposing force to get my head around. Not that I'm a humourless dullard, but I really did not need all these comedic scenes involving minor characters who served no purpose to the narrative or, in some cases, detracted from it. Without giving away any spoilers, there is a highly charged dramatic scene a large part of the way through the film involving Betty and Zorg, which had me there, hook-line-and-sinker, until the untimely intervention of certain agencies. It pulled me out of the moment and actually made me rather cross and go, "why am I wasting my time with these idiots when I only care about Betty and Zorg?" I wasn't keeping count, but I would say there were at least half a dozen of these infuriating instances which did nothing but eat up screen-time and threaten to turn it into a snoozefest, regardless of whether or not I was supping a tin of Monster energy drink!

But I had been bitten by the bug. Betty Blue entranced me. I did some research online, and although much of what others think has little to no impugnment upon my own judgement, I scoured through Reddit forums and the like, and from the information I gathered it seemed to be fairly mixed in terms of which cut was considered superior: some preferred the theatrical release, others more so the version intégrale. There's an article I found on Movie-Censorship.com which does a wonderful scene-by-scene comparison of the two different versions corresponding to a rough parallel of their respective running times (definitely recommend checking out their website). So, for the first time in quite a while (the last was Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker, but that was more down to my being tired and having a poor lack of attention heading into watching such a great picture), as often I don't re-watch films for years apart, I decided to re-watch Betty Blue a few days later, only this time it was to be the theatrical cut.

I felt the narrative to be a lot leaner and cleaner. There are times whenever an artist is not necessarily the best judge of their own work. Just look at the difference between the theatrical release of Donnie Darko and Richard Kelly's Director's Cut of same said film. With an additional twenty minutes that took away from the fluidity of the original and questionable artistic changes (yes, I'm going give off about the iconic use of Echo And The Bunnymen's The Killing Moon being replaced by INXS' Never Tear Us Apart!), it's a worse film for the freedom he was granted. I will always say "artist first," but a second opinion is handy, and some people just need beaten with a stick and told to wise up (I'm looking at you, Quentin Tarantino!)! Anyway, Betty Blue's theatrical cut has a far better pace to it. It skims across like a stone across the surface of the water briskly, whereas at times the version intégrale trudges along rather sluggishly. The focus is far less on the bigger picture than the narrow. By proxy of artistic paradox this means that even it is on the surface smaller it is blown up to larger proportions, and thus, even with an hour's less screentime, the theatrical cut comes across in many respects as larger and more significant than the version intégrale. But things still weren't right, and once again I was left befuddled. Again, something was missing, and the very existence of the version intégrale hinted at what the problem with the theatrical release was:

it was simply too damn short! While getting rid of a lot of the perfunctory material that existed in the version intégrale, the theatrical release came with it's own problems, and for me presented problems from the opposite end of the spectrum. There were inconsistent elements which were fixed in the later cut, and some of which were not (that scene involving other agencies is still there!), shots added or moved around differently, and the same could be said for some of the continuity. The largest absence in the theatrical release is that it lacks the same level of texture, the epic scope and scale, that, no matter how bright the prism of the artistic paradox may shine, the picture was not as big as it should have been. There are moments which, though I have now seen both versions, I am unable to erase from my mind as key to the story. Once again, I will try to elucidate without giving away any spoilers, but there is a scene late in the film involving Betty and Zorg at a fun fair which is vital to the narrative; I will just leave it at that. Without this and a number of other scenes that add to the strength of the overall story, I come to the opinion that the theatrical version is also troublesome.

Which brings me to the next problem: does there exist, in the material presented in these two versions of Betty Blue a true masterpiece, and if so, is it morally and ethically correct to take a more involved approach to another person's artistic work?

(The above paragraph was the note I made to remind me as to where I was to pick up from when I resumed work on the article, after a 9am start on a Sunday inbetween...)

In answer to the first part of the above question, it is a definitive answer in the affirmative. There is no doubt that Betty Blue, for better or worse, has captured my heart and mind, and in such a unique way that it has provoked a causal reaction unlike any I've had to other films. I can safely say that, warts and all, for everything I acknowledge as being 'wrong' about it, I recognise and see these things and still say I believe it to be a great film. There is a masterpiece in there, but I do not feel that either of these representations show the singular masterwork.

One of the 21st century phenomenons among certain sections of the wider film community is the fan edit. Although alternate cuts existed before, oftentimes the individual work of professionals such as editors or even projectionists slicing and splicing directly onto film reels, they first began to gain prominence in popular culture with The Phantom Edit, a version of Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, created by editor Mike J. Nichols due to his discontent with the original, based upon what he saw as George Lucas' previous execution of his philosophies on storytelling. Since then, fans and filmmakers alike (Steven Soderbergh, for instance) have got in on it, perhaps the most notable instance of artistic endorsement being that of Peet Gelderblom's edit of Brian De Palma's Raising Cain, which followed the film's original script as opposed the theatrical release. This saw De Palma, who loved this particular cut, arrange to have Gelderblom supervise an edit which was added to the Blu-Ray release, becoming what De Palma felt to be the film's 'Director's Cut.'

Betty Blue, as has been the case with the film itself, is a different kettle of fish. As seen in Blue Notes And Bungalows, the making-of documentary accompanying the DVD release, those involved with the film seem be divided 50/50 down the middle as to which version they prefer. The most interesting statement comes from the film's associate producer Claudie Ossard, who states more or less the exact length I think is most appropriate for this story: "For me the ideal running time for Betty Blue is 130 or 140 minutes. Three hours is too much. But Jean-Jacques [Beineix] decided that his three-hour version should be restored." Indeed, Beineix says himself as much that "It [the version intégrale] is the version... You know, there is no... no doubt about that."

Although I can say it's the only picture I've ever felt inclined towards seeing a fan edit of, or even doing my own, equally I feel it is questionable to do this to another artist's work. Perhaps my own increasing involvement in the process has made me more sensitive about such things, but I feel that to do such a thing to someone else's work, especially when they have already stated they are satisfied that their version is out there for audiences to enjoy, is to go a step too far. I'm fairly open-minded when it comes to remix culture (The Caretaker's An Empty Bliss Beyond This World is one of my favourite albums) and turning older art into something else anew, but where this becomes problematic morally is when people start putting their own stamp onto something else extant. While An Empty Bliss... is the work of another artist operating with materials to make something different, a fan edit detracts from the autonomy of an artist. It goes above and beyond the realms of audience engagement and art critique, into that of interaction. Altering the DNA, genetic code, mutating it into something else entirely, the fan edit fundamentally change the rules of a given piece. By placing their own principles upon it in this sense, unless that level of interactivity is part of the story itself, openly invited, (the recent Black Mirror: Bandersnatch, or video game developer Quantic Dream's work, for example), I feel it to be a potentially dangerous element. Whatever the purpose or intent may be, it inserts the viewer into a different form of engagement which makes you (as in me) ask,

"What is the point if you just get to pick and choose what you want to see?"

In life, you do not get to simply pick and choose what happens to you. Although matters of free will and choice come into the equation, ultimately there are things which can only be put down to chance (another feather in Beineix's favour when he argues that "Life is an absurdity..."), and if you aren't able to go with the challenges and accept reality, art, as it were, for what it is, you either reject that particular piece, reality, or, if you try to change it, manipulate your surroundings to fit your liking or preference, the ego flows over into tyranny. This question surrounding art, however troublesome it may be, can be applied to that of one's approach to life itself.

And so, for the present at least, I have resigned myself to taking Betty Blue for what it is. Though it infuriates me so, I still love the movie. It might not be everyone's cup of tea (things'd be no fun if they were), but I think that it's a lovely piece: sweet, sincere, funny, romantic, heartbreaking. It speaks to it's quality that it has got me thinking about it in such a way. A work of strange and flawed greatness. Hence the title.

Friday, 11 October 2019

Joker: Mental Health in Relation, and Personal Thoughts



Joker is a dangerous and subversive film. I just want to say that outright and get it out of the way. I understand that the use of such rhetoric has meaning and may be seen by some as gross, but it was among the first things that came to mind when I started to think about it properly. The film definitely comes with a warning for those folks who are more sensitive to such subject matter. I am the last person to get hysterical, and in no way do I want to contribute to this shitstorm of hullaballoo going around about the film being a potential 'trigger' (incidentally, a lot of the responses backlashing to those responses have less than coherent or cohesive in their rebuttal), but walking out of the Odeon at Victoria Square, I had such a cerebral reaction to the piece that I actually decided to ascend the stairs and went up to The Dome for a spell so I could gather my thoughts together. Now, while I may use such words as 'dangerous' and 'subversive' in my opening sentence, I do believe the film to be a masterpiece. It is a cautionary tale on the media, politics and society of our times, and will probably end up being the most significant film of 2019. No work this year is going to inspire as much debate and discussion with audiences. While opinion may be divided on the film's overall quality, I feel that for a mainstream film to bring out this level of engagement and participation it deserves to be applauded. It's a truly bold and provocative work, but the thing that was most striking for me and really took away was it's depiction and portrayal of mental illness.

Yesterday was World Mental Health Day, something which, I won't lie, completely passed under my radar until I found that my Facebook and various social media feeds were clogged up with resplendent posts on the matter ("It's okay not to be okay."). That being said, from my own standpoint it's an unusual but somewhat fitting coincidence I went to see the picture yesterday. I think part of the reason that it got me so much is because there was an air of familiarity to it. I recognised the things this character was doing and where his head was at. The big difference between, say, Heath Ledger's Joker and Joaquin Phoenix's Joker is that, while Ledger played a ghost, an existential agent of chaos, Phoenix's Joker is a man. Not the man, but a man. As in any man. As in everyman. Arthur Fleck could be Joe Bloggs or Johnny Smith, any lost soul walking down the street towards you, wrapped up in the tortures and troubles of their inner demons, trying to make sense of it all, figure out what's going on and where they belong in a world which is, to their perception, inherently crazy. Not to be all beh beh about it, because I didn't forget about it, but I more or less switched off that I was watching a, quote, 'Batman movie,' endquote. I was simply watching a man suffering from severe depression descend into madness.

As I said, part of what I guess frightened me so much and really got under my skin about Joker is that familiarity and recognition. There were times watching the film I couldn't help thinking "I've been there."

I've been that guy who has been frustrated with my job and work colleagues.
I've been that guy who plays out fantastical scenarios of love and death in my head, be they when I'm asleep or in a daydream, so vivid they could almost be real.
I've been that guy who scribbles and scrawls compulsively in a journal.
I've been that guy who dances half-naked at home wielding weapons.
I've been that guy who has shrunk in weight, had a radical physical alteration.
I've been that guy who has had to listen to other people tell me to "put on a happy face."
I've been that guy sways about the place, caught up in the delirious joy of my own little world.
I've been that guy who has woke up screaming or sobbing in the middle of the night.
I've been that guy who has been seized with involuntary, nervous reactions when it is uncalled for at certain moments.
I've been that guy who has been unable to express what he is feeling, living in dread of the consequences of giving breath to my thoughts through action.
I've been that guy who gets into stupid situations but, like a moth, is drawn to the flame, unable to turn away.
I've been that guy who wants to be an artist.

Josh Brolin said something rather telling about his thoughts on the film: "To appreciate Joker I believe you have to have gone through something traumatic in your lifetime (and I believe most of us have) or understand somewhere in your psyche what true compassion is."

I too have danced with the devil in the pale moonlight.

When writing my book, Cat's Miaow, while I wrote a work of fiction from the perspective of a character, Jack, in so doing I ended up going through a prolonged period of self-exploration.

"When you look long into the abyss, the abyss looks back at you."

The pool shimmering in the moonlight at the bottom of the well is the sea of - 

Jack was something I invented years ago as a coping strategy for me to deal with things that were particularly troubling to me as a teenager. I liked to imagine it manifested itself as an alter ego, and it was one of my ways, mechanisms of putting all my negative thoughts and feelings into one place and locking them away. When I wrote the book, though, Pandora's Box was opened.

In letting Jack breath and getting into the headspace required to explore the territory I wished to walk for the sake of art, I let myself enter the bleakest parts of my psyche, shone a light on my darker moments. It's not something I yap on about too much, and how apropos I talk about things like this in the form of an article (art as another diversionary tactic of my psychological makeup, dressing things up in fantasy), but I've had my hard times. Alan Moore once said that "an artist or writer is the closest thing in the contemporary world to a shaman," in relation to his belief of art as magic. In the case of Cat's Miaow, I took the curse, my inner demons, and I cast a long, arduous spell on the black and wicked thing. It took two years of my life, during which I was, on occasion, consumed, worrying I was no longer able to distinguish between Callum and Jack, my true identity, and I still have some of the lingering aftereffects, but ultimately it was worth it. Call it suffering for your art and all that boohick, but it was like an exorcism. I came out the other end feeling fresh, more vigorous and alive than ever before. On top of that, I've now done something which I feel to be of relative merit. If nothing else, it was worth it for that alone.

But enough about me!

And so, of all the many things to take away from it, that was what struck me the most. Joaquin Phoenix deserves all the accolades in the world for his extraordinarily empathetic lead performance, which, despite being something which pushes against two very different polarities, manages to be incredibly well-balanced. Arthur Fleck does things which are morally questionable and has an all-encompassing world view of self-isolationism, and yet he remains throughout pitiable and sympathetic. Furthermore, I forgive Todd Phillips for The Hangover films. He and the rest of the crew that he has assembled deserve a pat on the back for their efforts in contributing to the overall piece. It is a testament and a delight to me personally that people were willing to take a chance on this one. Even without the Joker character itself, it's a hard sell. It's a hard, hard sell. But oftentimes, it's the harder ones that makes the buying all the more worth it. It invites in and is more than welcome in conversation alongside the likes of Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, or Death Wish and First Blood, two movies also from the period in which the film is set that also see their protagonists react to injustice with violence. Also, aside from perhaps Ben Esmail's Mr. Robot or Vince Gilligan's Breaking Bad, proof once again that TV is all the rage and where a lot of the more daring and audacious things are being done right now, I can't remember the last time I saw a film released which is such a prescient reflection of it's times.

It's like instead of the APPLAUSE sign that you see on the set of the Murray Franklin show, telling us to bleat out and follow along, the other end of the coin has been revealed, the sign has been turned flipside, and it says,

THIS IS NOW

So, for all of you folks wondering what the hell I've been yapping on about, I won't tell you too much because frankly there's no need. However, I am expressing positive thoughts on the film as a whole, and I am sharing my solidarity in relation to World Mental Health Day. It goes without saying that mental health awareness is very important (It is okay to not be okay), and this is also where I feel Joker comes in as a significant work. It is a tough film and incredibly intense, but that it touched me in that way, while it may be a purely individual reaction, is indicative there is something worth talking about. Certainly, I can speak for myself about the power of art, engaging with it and your own personal artistic expression, whatever that may be in your life, and the healing effect it can have on you. While I think all this hokum about copycats and it potentially inspiring violence is another constructed moral panic, I definitively believe in the so-called 'artist's responsibility,' and here Joker succeeds. 

It's not easy. To paraphrase Bette Davis, it's a long, hard ride in a bumpy night, but ultimately it's a cathartic experience, well worth it when you come out the other end, "on a sunny day where the skies are clear." 

Tuesday, 24 September 2019

Dark Days: Boris Johnson and the Supreme Court

(Picture Credit: The Financial Times)


This morning, Lady Hale read out the judgment of the Supreme Court, that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen that Parliament should be prorogued was unlawful. While I’m sure that many folks on the liberal and left were bouncing with delight and glee, later, as I sat in the café hearing Jeremy Corbyn, the Great White Hope, attaching himself to yet another seemingly populist cause of dissent, calling out, to rapturous applause, that the Prime Minister should resign, I could not see it as anything but another chapter in an ongoing calamity. As a perennially contrarian antagonist and agitator, I’m the last person to vote in favour of the maintenance of the status quo, but I couldn’t help thinking of the dark days ahead.

The decision of the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament in the midst of the Brexit fiasco was questionable to say the least. At a time when we are approaching major upheaval as regards the future of the United Kingdom in the international sphere, to not have our elected representatives out there doing their best to secure a deal and create the foundations for a viable future is very foolish. Indeed, the case is particularly complicated over here in Northern Ireland. When we should be looking for viable solutions to the Irish border problem, Arlene Foster, the leader of our backwards ruling party the DUP, seems to be more content to pull the wool over our eyes with an illusion all wrapped up in symbolism, discussing with the Prime Minister a proposed bridge between Ardoyne and Scotland which, let’s face it, if this most ridiculous plan does come to fruition, will probably end up like The Bridge On The River Kwai, either by way of dastardly Republicans or the unexploded World War II torpedoes in the Irish Sea. Like that of President Herr Trump’s Great Wall Of Mexico, this grand image is, in essence, highfalutin hullabaloo, nonexistent vapour designed to distract from the issues at hand.

Still, despite my opposition to the parasites and crooks that primarily constitute, stinking up hallowed halls as their greasy sweat sticks to the leathered seats they so lazily stretch and sprawl themselves across while discussing the fate of the peons, I cannot jubilate in this decision. Some will celebrate it as an example of democracy coming through, as our politicians will sit once again on Wednesday, but I cannot. Our democracy has long since been sabotaged. Any semblance of the concept or the idea, the fundamentals behind what the word ‘democracy’ means are lies and the bedrock, source of manipulation from which these charlatans function, use as their base of operations. It will be business as usual as they continue doing nothing to institute change, real, positive change for the betterment of our nation’s inhabitants.

As the old man grumbled in the café while I listened to Corbyn’s declaration in my left ear over the loudspeakers on the radio, “I’ve never heard the likes of it,” I was uncertain as to where he lay, but I knew that whatever way it was a negative statement.

If Prime Minister Boris Johnson does or is forced to resign he will be adopted by the increasingly prominent extreme-right. As we have seen in the case of fringe figures such as Jayda Fransen and Tommy Robinson, everybody loves a martyr, and playing victim to the press in the name of ‘freedom of speech,’ perhaps accompanied by a picture with duck tape over their mouths, it serves to increase discontent. Instead of being a case of democracy, justice being served, these individuals, with their twisted, perverted logic will force themselves to see only what they want to see, that Boris Johnson was screwed out of doing right by the British people. Thankfully though, the plus side of this current brand of the far-right is they are a fairly jumbled bunch who create scenes, mere acts of provocation rather than anything lacking in legitimate meaning. The most dangerous thing about fascism is that it has a philosophy, and this lot are much too lacking in intelligence to be able to capitalise on that base, core simplicity, overloading their senses and sending their brains akimbo by behaving like a bunch of boors and louts. They couldn’t organise the proverbial piss-up in a brewery, much less an armed militia.

The left seem, on the surface, to have been doing a better job of it. Jeremy Corbyn has slowly been building himself into the figurehead they so desperately want, and a number of different organisations operate on a grassroots level, working diligently and patiently to win over supporters. However, I still can’t help but feel that, like Sinn Fein over here, the Labour Party across the water has too many dirty little secrets, the only difference being that while the Tories are playing out their dramas in public, Labour are keeping things close to the bone, inhouse, closed doors, or rather under several gag orders. The presentation they want everyone to see is that of a strong, unified front, but I suspect that behind the scenes there is something nasty and wicked lurking. Furthermore, the mass movements concern themselves more in creating a festival atmosphere of drinking and partying than any legitimate shock to the system, a glowing smiley-face emoji in place of the face of anger, not forgetting to get their sweeping wide-shots all over social media. Such is the nature of 21st century protest.

Not everyone gets into politics on the basis of ulterior motives, but over time, unfortunately, most of these people lose sight of what brought them to the dance. They compromise their visions, let themselves go, fall in line with everyone else. Raising their feet in a ninety-degree arc, swinging arms together as they march like party animals, all original thoughts thrown to the wayside, lying dead in a ditch as a passing car splashes dirty mud water from a puddle on their carcass.

“He loved Big Brother.”

We stand on the precipice of a period of great uncertainty, and nobody has a clue what to do.

And yet, there is still hope. When I see people like Greta Thunberg, the courageous sixteen-year old activist who is travelling the world to enlighten people on the risks of climate change, I am inspired. It says something about the state of things when it takes someone like this to stand up fearlessly in front of The Big People and give them what for, take no prisoners and aim for the gullet. I bought a collection of her speeches, No One Is To Small To Make A Difference, earlier this year, and I’d urge everyone to pick up a copy. It’s inner-eye/mind-opening stuff. Of course, I worry. Already, the truth hurts too much for some. I have seen the writing on the wall in the rhetoric adopted by those who attack Thunberg. I don’t even like saying it, lest the suggestion has some sort of trickle affect along the psychic bond  shared among all individuals, but the state is crazy and messed up enough as it is that I would not be surprised is someone attempted to assassinate her, and all because she has the guts to say what needs to said, has the will to address what we refuse to admit. People might say, “oh, no, nobody would stoop so low,” but as history proves, our capacity to willingly commit such acts knows no bounds.

I hate to be the doomsayer, to have such a borderline apocalyptic worldview. I see it in my dreams when I sleep, the film pulled back revealing things to me, but for years we have been coming towards the edge. We are on the peak of history. On every single day that passes we are effecting change. The plural duality, aspect of humankind, we’re split one of two ways, either to save the race, fighting against the death-wish, the sex-death instinct, compulsive love of self-destruction, or going with it, wittingly or otherwise, letting ourselves plunge into the abyss.

Bubbles rise to the surface of the water as the kettle boils, brewing. The tension builds. We could be fighting in the streets, descend into chaos when what we is need order and stability. I worry, I fear for the future of our world, not my own.

But that is one possible future.

At risk of sounding like I’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid, humanity has a strange and wonderful knack of surviving. In my heightened states of mind I imagine all possibilities operating on respective planes simultaneously, and yet the one I gravitate towards sees us transcending, crossing over, break on through to the other side.

Although we may have dark days ahead, I have no doubt that we will pass this crisis, walk forward, moving, in our way, learning, understanding, to live long, love our world and one another.

Friday, 6 September 2019

The Retch Effect - Ideas and Content in Extreme Cinema



Recently, for the first time I watched Gaspar Noe's 2002 film Irreversible. Associated with the movement of cinema du corps (cinema of the body), more popularly known as the New French Extremity, which has gained prominence since the turn of the 21st century. Highly controversial upon initial release, while featuring graphic violence and being constructed in an unconventional fashion, it is the extended ten-minute sequence at it's centrepiece, in which Monica Bellucci's character Alex is brutally raped and beaten in a long take, that has continued to live on in notoriety. It is an excruciating scene, and as I was watching it I felt physically sick and began dry-heaving, several times coming close to turning it off because I was so revolted at the suffering I was witnessing I thought I might not be able to continue. However, as horrific as it is, I was glad I saw the film through to the end, as within the cerebral experimentation I knew I was watching a picture quite unlike any I had ever seen. Weeks later, as time goes on I'm still thinking about the film, and while others may disagree (it has a mixed reception of 57% on Rotten Tomatoes), some quite vehemently, I do believe it to be a masterpiece. It got me thinking,

"What other works of art have elicited similar such emotional responses?"

Without focusing on art as a wider whole (if I did that, I'd be going so far as to include Francisco Goya's Saturn Devouring His Son), I am going to focus specifically on the genre of film known as Extreme Cinema.

So, what is extreme cinema?

The history of extreme cinema originates alongside the censorship of art films, exploitation pictures, the liberalisation of depictions of sexuality in the late-20th century, and excessive violence and torture. The term itself comes from the growth in the early-21st century of Asian films, specifically those of South Korea and Japan (the former UK distributor Tartan marketed a number of these films under the Tartan Asia Extreme label, giving many of them their most widespread releases), although Japan in particular was exploring these avenues for some decades before with the pinku eiga. American cinema also had it's ventures with the rape and revenge picture, the slasher and the splatter genres, and Italian has a historic tradition of genre cinema, but the extreme side came along in the seventies with the giallo and the cannibal film. These pictures are often a source of debate among film fans and film critics, some even going as far as rankling the ire of the political establishment (infamously, Ruggero Deodato, after initial charges of obscenity, had them amended to include multiple charges of murder in relation to his 1980 film Cannibal Holocaust, only being cleared by the courts after having to prove that the actors were not legitimately killed onscreen).

Being a person who engages in a physical fashion to the stimulus around me through my senses and my intellect, this particular reaction probably says as much about myself as it does the works in question. "The Retch Effect," as I refer to it, is when I am driven by such an instinctive, gut impulse that my whole body surges towards this sickness that has me sounding like Linda Blair in The Exorcist. There are only a couple of other films I can recall having conjured up such a response:

1. Audition - Takashi Miike's film is one I have hailed for many years. I place it prominently among my ten favourite films of all time and feel there's a strong argument for it being perhaps the greatest horror film of all time (the other half of that argument goes to George A. Romero's Night Of The Living Dead). Despite having seen it around a decade ago and holding it in such high esteem, I have only returned to it maybe three or four times since. The first time I saw it I dug my hands into a cushion so hard that the imprints of my fingers were left there days after. There are a couple of key scenes which produced this reaction.

2. Eraserhead - I am a big fan of David Lynch, but only in the past few years did I watch Eraserhead for the first time (on a side note, it was very important in the process of writing my debut novel, Cat's Miaow). Since then, I have watched five or six times, and no matter how much I may appreciate the craftsmanship of the picture and the strangely beautiful way in which the story unfolds, at the film's climax I am always brought forth towards the dry-heaves. The reaction is always the same, to the point that even before I get there I can already start feeling my body building itself towards that horrific denouement. There's something so personal there in the pain which just drives home in a traumatic manner.

The question from here is that if I can react in such a way to some works, why not so to other works, some even more extreme in their content?

While I would by no means proclaim myself an expert, I do watch a fair degree of tough movies, and go out of my way to seek the films which, for better or worse, have pushed the boundaries of acceptability in cinema. However, despite the fact that their content might be considered extreme, I fail to respond in such a manner and they do not stay with me apart from the fact I have a knowledge that I do not feel I have gained anything of real significance from having seen them. Lucio Fulci's New York Ripper is one I always come back to, as any potential qualities it has get lost in a muddled tone that is, if not intentional, then certainly openly misogynistic and homophobic. Eli Roth's Hostel is a laughably bad picture that did nothing for me as a teenager, and I can only imagine that years of hardened cynicism and all-round grumpiness won't make it any better. A sad case is Tom Six, whose first two Human Centipede films, while not being great works of art, were good pieces of trash cinema that delivered exactly what it said on the tin, while his magnum opus, the orgiastic Gotterdammerung that was Human Centipede 3 was an outrageously self-indulgent piece of ego-stroking. And people get angry at Lars Von Trier! Even the multiplexes have been invade. Look at The Hangover Part II. Admittedly, I didn't like any of them, but this was a Fulci-level exploitation film wrapped up in the guise of comedy. The same can be said for Michael Bay's Transformers franchise. These are big, loud, brash and bombastic pictures which are essentially exploitation pictures dressed up as big-budget blockbusters.

From here, comes another question: apart from me getting slightly cross, why was it that these films had to little to no effect?

It is because they lack any central ideas. I forget if this is the exact quote (I'm not just being lazy, I did try to research it) but I believe it is from the Mademoiselle in Pascal Laugier's 2008 film Martyrs: "the most frightening thing about pain is that it has a philosophy." The same can be said for the film itself. Although featuring some of the most savage brutality ever committed to cinema, Martyrs is a film in which all of the violence has meaning (which is more than can be said for the glut of torture porn and found footage grot plaguing cinemas) and I would argue is the crown jewel of New French Extremity. Speaking of Lars Von Trier, the same can be said for Antichrist. In his best film to date, through the committed performances of lead actors Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe he creates a telling work on trauma, heartbreak and mental illness. The oeuvre of David Cronenberg, most specifically his body horror work and adaptation of J.G. Ballard's Crash, all have something under the surface that engages on a level beyond that of simple revulsion. Cast the net back to earlier works such as Pasolini's Salo, Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange and Ken Russell's The Devils, and all of these are made by artists at the peak of their craft doing something of great merit or meaning. Even in cinema's relative infancy, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali's 1929 short Un Chien Andalou, featuring one of the most disturbing images in cinema history, that of a woman's eye being sliced open with a razor, is designed around dream logic, Freudian free-association and the psychological implications it has on the viewer. These are no mere provocateurs.

Content alone will not truly get under the skin of the viewer. Otherwise it is without meaning. Rather, it is the ideas behind the content that make a particular work disturbing. It is not enough to simply splash such extremities up on the screen in a lurid and exploitative manner that indulges in a subconscious craving towards violence and objectification. The depiction and portrayal of extreme content should be executed in a manner in which the viewer, while not necessarily deriving enjoyment in the classical sense, should have gained something, learning from the ideas presented to them by the overall experience. While perception is indeed in the eye of the beholder, it is the artist's responsibility to get across their message and aim to deliver something of meaning,

thus, the ideas behind the content.